Iranian Foreign & Resistance Front Strategy & Operations

>> Your army may have been underfunded, but the air force has been massively massively underfunded. Modern wars start and finish with airpower, that has to be a primary focus for Iran now. Just look at what happened in the 4day/100hr war between Pakistan and India. Drones, missiles and airpower with minor skirmishes on the border by the Army.
The problem have been the low GDP avaiable for Defense, because of the sanctions most of that few money went to ballistic and cruise missile strategy. After it, UAV programs (both OWA and surveillance/attack). That would eventually explain the little expeding in Artesh in all three branches (IRIN is well underfunded also). Other reasons would be the high funding for AoR members. With HZ KO and PMU in Iraq also out, that margin would increase. Those resources can be redirected to essential new long range fighters (because of the size of the country) and IRIN new warships. Type 054AP+ are excellent basis for a quantum leap for the IRIN.
 
If ideology is enough to unite Iranians and Arabs, then why aren’t the Arabs united among themselves?
this great "mystery" that is countless times analyzed, and very similar with Arabian armies are definition of incompetent and ineffective military...

but like all other issues, this is deeply historically rooted in tribal origins of Arabians, and only the Prophet Muhammed was able to unite them with Muslim ideological power in that period... before that and nowadays situation is not different... their monarchs will rather be American semi-colony than to see his rivaled bro being pan-Arabian leader...

mutual distrust, brotherly stabbing in the back, clans....

now situation is even worse... It's not that Arabs don't want to be united, but at least several candidates will insist on the neo-Caliph position... officers of the same army don't trust each other.... there were few attempts, that failed miserably, and hard to be optimistic about this for next 1000 years...
 
this great "mystery" that is countless times analyzed, and very similar with Arabian armies are definition of incompetent and ineffective military...

but like all other issues, this is deeply historically rooted in tribal origins of Arabians, and only the Prophet Muhammed was able to unite them with Muslim ideological power in that period... before that and nowadays situation is not different... their monarchs will rather be American semi-colony than to see his rivaled bro being pan-Arabian leader...

mutual distrust, brotherly stabbing in the back, clans....

now situation is even worse... It's not that Arabs don't want to be united, but at least several candidates will insist on the neo-Caliph position... officers of the same army don't trust each other.... there were few attempts, that failed miserably, and hard to be optimistic about this for next 1000 years...
The hostility from Arabs towards Iranians is different. It’s not purely sectarian as this hostility is recorded even when Iran was predominantly Sunni. Iran has been somewhat successful in gaining influence over Shia Arab militants, this has lead people into thinking Iranians and Arabs can be united through ideology, this is to some extent true, but we need to factor in that these Shia groups have been facing discrimination by their own governments and population. Are they loyal to Iran due to a shared ideology, or is it simply due to them having no one else to rely upon? Would they still work with Iran if they were accepted by their own Arabs? Most likely not.

Take a look at how much Iran has spent since the revolution supporting these groups, if you account for indirect costs through sanctions, loss of tourism from media portrayal, lack of foreign investments etc, the sum is going to be in trillions. Look at how much Turkey has spent compared to Iran. Its peanuts. Turkey is overwhelmingly looked positively by Arabs, while Iran is extremely disliked. The funny thing is that even in Gaza, Iran is generally disliked. They condemn Iran and dream of ottoman revival meanwhile Turkey is supplying the Israeli war machine. You can’t make this shit up. Part of it does come from sectarianism. But you see this pattern even among non religious Arabs. I believe a lot of it comes from soft power. Turkey has been very successful at exporting its culture through promoting tourism, exporting cinema, commodities etc. Go to a random market in any Arab country and you’ll find lots of Turkish products. How many Iranian products will you find?
 
extreme hunger in Gaza: 🇵🇸🕊

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
The hostility from Arabs towards Iranians is different. It’s not purely sectarian as this hostility is recorded even when Iran was predominantly Sunni. Iran has been somewhat successful in gaining influence over Shia Arab militants, this has lead people into thinking Iranians and Arabs can be united through ideology, this is to some extent true, but we need to factor in that these Shia groups have been facing discrimination by their own governments and population. Are they loyal to Iran due to a shared ideology, or is it simply due to them having no one else to rely upon? Would they still work with Iran if they were accepted by their own Arabs? Most likely not.

Take a look at how much Iran has spent since the revolution supporting these groups, if you account for indirect costs through sanctions, loss of tourism from media portrayal, lack of foreign investments etc, the sum is going to be in trillions. Look at how much Turkey has spent compared to Iran. Its peanuts. Turkey is overwhelmingly looked positively by Arabs, while Iran is extremely disliked. The funny thing is that even in Gaza, Iran is generally disliked. They condemn Iran and dream of ottoman revival meanwhile Turkey is supplying the Israeli war machine. You can’t make this shit up. Part of it does come from sectarianism. But you see this pattern even among non religious Arabs. I believe a lot of it comes from soft power. Turkey has been very successful at exporting its culture through promoting tourism, exporting cinema, commodities etc. Go to a random market in any Arab country and you’ll find lots of Turkish products. How many Iranian products will you find?
good summary although it is difficult to attribute ALL of the costs to the decision to support resistance groups alone. at least we can debate it. would the US ever allow a truly sovereign Iran with ICBMs and a nuclear program and an independent foreign policy? I am not so sure.

it is pretty remarkable that in the middle of a genocide where Iran, which does not recognise Israel and launched 2 massive missile attacks against Israel, and Turkey, which has recognised Israel and has an Israeli embassy in Ankara and is one of the biggest trading partners of Israel in the world, certain Palestinians still find the energy to tell the world how much they in fact hate Iran
 
good summary although it is difficult to attribute ALL of the costs to the decision to support resistance groups alone. at least we can debate it. would the US ever allow a truly sovereign Iran with ICBMs and a nuclear program and an independent foreign policy? I am not so sure.

it is pretty remarkable that in the middle of a genocide where Iran, which does not recognise Israel and launched 2 massive missile attacks against Israel, and Turkey, which has recognised Israel and has an Israeli embassy in Ankara and is one of the biggest trading partners of Israel in the world, certain Palestinians still find the energy to tell the world how much they in fact hate Iran
No. The U.S. would never allow Iran to develop ICBMs, nukes, or have a completely free foreign policy. The U.S wants Iran weak enough to not challenge the system, but strong enough to counterbalance the Sunnis and push the PG states toward American protection.

Israel sees it differently. They believe they can handle the Sunnis, but even a weak Iran is an existential threat, because Iran is technologically capable, increasingly self-sufficient, and too difficult to divide or manipulate. So unlike the U.S, they don’t need Iran to counterbalance the Sunnis, they need Iran gone.

But it’s not sustainable to keep throwing weapons and money at groups across the region forever while our own economy is bleeding. Who do you think is going to be the first to run out of dollars? The answer is Iran.

It’s a triangle with no real way out unless one side gives. The U.S. wants control. Israel wants elimination. IRI wants influence. And honestly IRI had its chance to break out of this during the TP1–TP2 attacks but chickened out. That was the moment to change the game by launching the 100s of thousands of missiles they promised they would, withdraw from NPT and finally test nukes, but they blinked. Now Hezbollah’s KO, Hamas is KO, Assad fucked off to somewhere in Russia to play dentist, and IRI is probably the one that’s going to have to give in first.
 
Supporting HAMAS was a strategic failure by IRI.
how? Hamas standing tall today proves this statement wrong.
If HAMAS joining ISIS during the Syrian civil war wasn’t enough proof that this group is an enemy of Iran and AOR,
Cant you/we accept that Hamas supporting ISIS in the Syrian civil war was a mistake and maybe Hamas has learned and changed its ways? or once violated you think Hamas can never be remade into an AoR ally again? things change and people make mistakes.
I don’t know what more proof IRI needed. The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.
Your opinion, there are other ways of looking at it too.
 
Complaining Shia Arabs not loyal enough to you, but you may miss something important——after Khomeini passed away and Khamenai became the supreme leader, Iran had lost its religious superiority, which means the so-called AoR is unstable——once Iran runs out of money, AoR will break up.
This is false, for the following reasons:

1. Powerful militia forces in the AoR aren't being held up by Iranian money- that is a false conclusion. These militias are run primarily on religious and political determination and confidence..which also expresses itself via military means and actions.

2.AoR militias can run on little Iranian money- they may have to shrink in size or reduce operations to make up for less funds from Iran, but they are already setup to fight for at least 1-2 years on their own without any Iranian support, especially after Iran provided these groups with local "trained trainers" and localized methods and equipment for weapons production.

3. AoR militia groups operate heavily based on support from locals- in the political, economic and religious spheres, the AoR usually blends with the local population (mayber not always), and this facilitates their operations and movement and freedoms to do these things.
Another inappropriate example, ISIS. Jihadists groups from Negiria to Afghanistan pledged loyalty to Al-Bagdadi and announced to be a province of ISIS, without getting too much money from it.
Offcourse ISIS members get money from outside the regions they operate, especially from US, KSA, Qatar, Turkey, UAE, UK, at least 20-40% of EU , and not little money- decent international standard mercenary salaries....plus apparently new and western weapons and military vehicles.
Khomeini might have such influence, but Khamenei mustn’t.
In terms of religous authority and knowledge, Khomeini over Khameini, we all know this- the latter is noticeably less religously knowledgable and achieved than the former.

But when it comes to managing Iran politically, militarily and economically, i have to give Khameini a strong certification- he has really gotten Iran through ALOT while keeping the country safe, prosperous and peaceful, while still being at its strongest militarily since the revolution, while being under sanctions. Iran leads in drone and mobile warfare, so the Ukraine war was the world's wake up call that drone,air defense and mobile warfare are here and the main way war will be fought- that basically puts Iran as one of the few top nations militarily that is advanced in all 3 aspects (drones, air defense and mobile warfare/fighting doctrines).
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
I don't know of any such attempts in Egypt, but we supported the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan but it was defeated by the pro-US forces (i.e. the Taliban). The Ayatollahs of Iran didn't see Afghanistan as a priority. This is one of the other indicators of how the Ayatollahs of Iran see the issues of our national security through the prism of ideology, instead of national interests.
Of course Iran sees Afghanistan as a priority, and 2 areas come to my mind:

1. Political relationship- Iran is basically the neighboring country it has the highest relationship with, and Taliban used to be much closer to the Pakistani govt, through ISI or so, but not so much today- tensions are visible between both sides, and the Taliban instead have opened political office in Iran and are fully represented there.''

.2 Trade- Iran has connected Afghanistan to its railway network, all the way to the coast at Chabahar port, this is a big access and resource for Afghanistan, because Afghanistan is land locked and having problems with Pakistani govt that is also negatively affecting trade, leaving Afghanistan with really few but critical neighbor options for trade.

At the start of the Afghanistan war, Iran had little influence and involvement with affairs in Afghanistan, Pakistan had the clear access and control in Afghanistan through its strong relationship with the Taliban, but over the time the war was going on, Iran slowly started gaining more influence in and with the Taliban vis-a-vis Pakistan, and as of today, Afghanistan is more dependent economically on Iran than Pakistan, so that says alot. BUt i agree there is some discreetness to their relationship today, i dont hear too much, but it seems occasionally some minor disagreements flare up.
 
نقشه منافقین جدید

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
The hostility from Arabs towards Iranians is different. It’s not purely sectarian as this hostility is recorded even when Iran was predominantly Sunni. Iran has been somewhat successful in gaining influence over Shia Arab militants, this has lead people into thinking Iranians and Arabs can be united through ideology, this is to some extent true, but we need to factor in that these Shia groups have been facing discrimination by their own governments and population. Are they loyal to Iran due to a shared ideology, or is it simply due to them having no one else to rely upon? Would they still work with Iran if they were accepted by their own Arabs? Most likely not.

Take a look at how much Iran has spent since the revolution supporting these groups, if you account for indirect costs through sanctions, loss of tourism from media portrayal, lack of foreign investments etc, the sum is going to be in trillions. Look at how much Turkey has spent compared to Iran. Its peanuts. Turkey is overwhelmingly looked positively by Arabs, while Iran is extremely disliked. The funny thing is that even in Gaza, Iran is generally disliked. They condemn Iran and dream of ottoman revival meanwhile Turkey is supplying the Israeli war machine. You can’t make this shit up. Part of it does come from sectarianism. But you see this pattern even among non religious Arabs. I believe a lot of it comes from soft power. Turkey has been very successful at exporting its culture through promoting tourism, exporting cinema, commodities etc. Go to a random market in any Arab country and you’ll find lots of Turkish products. How many Iranian products will you find?
Iran is taking the long path, but the fruit of its effort will taste sweeter. Break the sanctions and build up a strong economy and increase influence. Africa, EurAsia, Latin America, enough people and places for trade.
Iran has enough leverage to change the situation; regional allies, nucleair program, possible missile exports to Russia, increasing missile range, trade arteries such as hormuz, bab al mandab etc.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Country Watch Latest

Back
Top